Ring as a company, and the fact that they're as successful as they are is just so, so disappointing. It kind of solidifies the idea to me that people, for some reason, just do not care about their...
Ring as a company, and the fact that they're as successful as they are is just so, so disappointing. It kind of solidifies the idea to me that people, for some reason, just do not care about their privacy.
If it was something people cared at about whatsoever, there would easily be a spot in the market for a company to successfully compete with them by selling an affordable, easy to set up, consumer oriented NVR and camera system. Currently all that exists in that market are the same players that have been there for 20 years selling largely outdated hardware for extremely high prices to mainly business customers.
You can build a security system yourself without too much trouble, but it's not as dead simple as ring. It could be, if companies thought there was a market for it, but there just isn't. It's kind of depressing to me that it isn't a priority in more people's minds despite how many data mishandling scandals there have been in the past few years.
the argument that follows is usually to question something of the individual with the concern. What deeply concerns me are the implications and assumptions to be made about you, based on my data....
the argument that follows is usually to question something of the individual with the concern. What deeply concerns me are the implications and assumptions to be made about you, based on my data. I consider myself as somewhat of an enigma in the realm of data miners, but in reality I'm probably as similar to the next tilder. AI makes assumptions based on previous facts, and often answers in fallacy when not provided enough accurate data. What happens when an potentially life changing decision is required to be made upon an individual who is not clearly defined by a theoretical AI? To take the point a bit further, what happens when a similar decision is made upon an individual who IS clearly identified, yet made by data collected from both clearly defined and not-so-clearly defined individuals (within this hypothetical abstract situation that is)?
This is false on the facts presented - they said their products don't use it, they are developing it. These are not contradictory statements. Buzzfeed again with the dodgy reporting. There's...
Ring’s contradictory statements about its facial recognition efforts
This is false on the facts presented - they said their products don't use it, they are developing it. These are not contradictory statements.
Buzzfeed again with the dodgy reporting. There's enough about Ring to rail against that this sort of fluff just isn't necessary.
Ring as a company, and the fact that they're as successful as they are is just so, so disappointing. It kind of solidifies the idea to me that people, for some reason, just do not care about their privacy.
If it was something people cared at about whatsoever, there would easily be a spot in the market for a company to successfully compete with them by selling an affordable, easy to set up, consumer oriented NVR and camera system. Currently all that exists in that market are the same players that have been there for 20 years selling largely outdated hardware for extremely high prices to mainly business customers.
You can build a security system yourself without too much trouble, but it's not as dead simple as ring. It could be, if companies thought there was a market for it, but there just isn't. It's kind of depressing to me that it isn't a priority in more people's minds despite how many data mishandling scandals there have been in the past few years.
the argument that follows is usually to question something of the individual with the concern. What deeply concerns me are the implications and assumptions to be made about you, based on my data. I consider myself as somewhat of an enigma in the realm of data miners, but in reality I'm probably as similar to the next tilder. AI makes assumptions based on previous facts, and often answers in fallacy when not provided enough accurate data. What happens when an potentially life changing decision is required to be made upon an individual who is not clearly defined by a theoretical AI? To take the point a bit further, what happens when a similar decision is made upon an individual who IS clearly identified, yet made by data collected from both clearly defined and not-so-clearly defined individuals (within this hypothetical abstract situation that is)?
This is false on the facts presented - they said their products don't use it, they are developing it. These are not contradictory statements.
Buzzfeed again with the dodgy reporting. There's enough about Ring to rail against that this sort of fluff just isn't necessary.